The Ethical Implications of having a Savior Sibling

The Ethical Implications of having a Savior Sibling

            Devotion to family is considered one of the highest virtues. Saving a sibling from a fatal disease is a heroic act that one cannot shy away from. In most cases, organ donors frequently feel proud, valuable and unique, and if the recipient is a family member, the other relatives will remain eternally grateful to them for saving a life. However, conceiving a child for the sole purpose of saving an older child is unethical. It is objectifying the life of a child by treating them as an accessory for providing a solution to a sickness. The paper asserts to look at the ethical implications from three perspectives; the selection of the embryo that will later develop into the savior child, the psychological wellbeing of both the savior and recipient children and also the effort put in to ensure the savior child understands their role as a donor.

Most organ donors including siblings are consulted and given specific positive and negative outcomes of the whole procedure. Armed with full information of how the transplant will be carried out, the donor can now make an informed decision of whether to donate or not. This is not the case with savior siblings; the children are reproduced with the sole purpose of saving the life of their sibling. The savior siblings start donating from an early stage when they cannot give consent and even when they grow up; they are expected to be donors whenever the need arises. This has given rise to an ethical debate concerning savior siblings and whether it is morally right to reproduce children solely for that purpose.

Children born to parents who are carriers of recessive diseased genes are most likely to suffer from severe disabilities and congenital genetic problems (Muade, 2014).  These genetic problems have minimal chances of cure, and at times they are entirely incurable. To save their ailing child, some parents resort to siring a savior child who will save the sick child. The siring of the savior child is not entirely through natural conception; It is through a process called In-vitro-Fertilization (IVF). According to McClean (2016), the woman is treated with fertility drugs which stimulate her to produce multiple eggs and the healthy ones are harvested and injected with sperm cells. This leads to the creation of different embryos which are later implanted in the uterus of the woman. This raises an ethical and moral question about the selective reproduction of the child. Only the healthy embryo is selected and implanted while the other defective embryos are destroyed. Some embryos that are destroyed are those that seem to have physical disabilities or certain genetic disorders. In line with McClean (2016), the destruction of defective embryos is sending a message to the society that life with that particular disability or genetic trait is not worth living. It is a sort of discrimination toward people living with disabilities since the disabled embryos are destroyed while the healthy ones are preserved and protected till maturity.

The destruction of the defective embryos also brings in the question of murder. The developed embryos have the potential of growing and developing into human beings and when they are destroyed, future human beings are destroyed. It is highly unethical to deprive a person the chance to live and exploit their potential whether they will be born with disabilities or not. Furthermore, there is no need of inducing so many embryos only keep one and destroy the rest.

Another ethical concern is the wellbeing of both the savior and recipient children. Trifiolis (2014) states that “Creating a savior sibling is merely conceiving a child to be used as an instrument and an object in curing another child.” It is clear that the children are conceived for the sole purpose of donating tissue, bone marrow or an organ for an older sibling. The savior siblings are treated as a commodity because the only condition under which they are conceived is medical purposes. Most of the parents make a focused effort to save the ailing child and, in that effort, they forget their parental obligations to the newborn. Since all the attention goes to the sick child, the savior child is at times neglected. The child might grow up feeling objectified and only feels important when they are used to donate to their older sibling.

Also, having a savior child could lead the recipient child to psychological distress. The whole process of picking out the most eligible embryo to serve as a future donor child relies purely on technology. However, even when using the technology appropriately and doing everything right, the testing can still result in unforeseen situations (Mills, 2013). Therefore, the selected embryo and later savior child can end up being incompatible to the ailing sibling. Failing to get treatment can distress the sick child since they were filled with hope that the new sibling was the cure to their sickness but when the time comes, they physicians reveal that they are incompatible. Furthermore, if a savior child dies, all hope the recipient child had is lost, and this could lead to depression.

Similarly, the savior child can also suffer psychologically since they feel bound to save their sibling. When they discover that they are incompatible and cannot, therefore, save their ailing sibling, they feel guilty and distressed. The savior child has been brought up knowing that their purpose is to save their older ailing sibling. However, when they discover that they are incompatible and therefore of no help, the savior child feels like a failure because they have failed to fulfill their sole purpose in life.

In most cases, the savior child does not fully understand their role as a donor. When parents get children, they have the whole future planned out for them, but in most cases, when the children grow up, they tend to discover their passion and interest and can veer off from the path their parents intended for them. When the parents make a decision to sire and raise a donor child, the child is unaware of the plans made for them. All medical and legal consent is given by the parents without considering what the child will say or think when they grow up. When the savior child eventually grows up, they may agree or disagree with the decision the parents made. Even when the savior sibling does not want to be a donor, they feel pressured to donate (Mills, 2013). This tactic of pressuring the child to donate works but it has adverse psychological effects on the savior child. In addition, when they later grow up, the savior siblings feel that they have no control over their bodies. This is because they feel morally obligated to save their ailing sibling. In some instances where the savior child does not want to be a donor, they are bribed, threatened or manipulated psychologically into being donors. This goes against ethical standards where donors donate at free will and not under any pressure or blackmail.

However, there is a counterargument that savior siblings are included in the family interests since their welfare is intertwined with the recipient child. According to Selgelid (2015), In addition to the psychological benefits of saving a loved family member, there would be numerous indirect/ instrumental benefits for the new child when the family flourishes as a result. This means that the benefits of saving a loved one can justify the ethical considerations of having a savior child. Also, when it comes to the selection of the embryo, there is an argument that because the child is needed for treatment purposes, there is no need of selecting a defective embryo in order to increase the chances of successful treatment. Since the child is part of a family, the devotion to save a loved one overcomes all ethical implications.

Conclusion

In summary, even if it is noble and essential to save a life if one has the opportunity, it is equally important to consider the psychological and physical effects it has on the savior child. The savior child should be treated like a child rather than an object of curing another child. This can be done by considering all ethical implications before deciding to sire a savior child. These children should be given the choice to explore other paths in life rather than being emotionally lured or manipulated into being donors even when it will cause them psychological distress.

References

McClean, M. (2015). Children’s Anatomy v. Children’s Autonomy: A Precarious Balancing Act with Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and the Creation of Savior Siblings. Pepp. L. Rev., 43, 837.

Mills, J. (2013). Understanding the Position of the Savior Sibling: How Can We Save Lives and Protect Savior Siblings?(Doctoral dissertation, Wake Forest University).

Muade, E. N. (2014). The birth of a” saviour sibling”: an ethico-legal appraisal (Doctoral dissertation).

Selgelid, M. J. (2015). A relational approach to saviour siblings?.

Trifiolis, K. L. (2014). Savior Siblings: The Ethical Debate.